Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826173857.03a8f130@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:49:07 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <430F33E4.20204@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826005941.03dcdeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<430EF843.3000709@zurich.ibm.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050826142135.049e1a60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<430F33E4.20204@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG powers
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 17:23 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>At 13:08 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>>
>>>>just a remark here. In the RFC 3066bis Last Call case the IETF 
>>>>has the capacity not only to "police" but to "impose" and 
>>>>"force". This is the case when a memo documents a IANA registry. 
>>>>In the case of a standard track memo, there can be an appeal 
>>>>before it is imposed. It seems not in the case of a BCP.
>>>
>>>Wrong. IESG approvals of a standards track draft or of a BCP are equally
>>>subject to appeal within two months.
>>
>>Dear Brian,
>>I do not say that BCP are not subject to appeal, but that in the 
>>case of a standard track an appeal delays the enforcement and that 
>>in the case of BCP it does not. My sources are quoted below.
>
>I have no idea what you mean. Neither IETF standards nor BCPs are 
>enforced by anybody - they are what the standards community calls 
>voluntary standards.

Brian,
??? we talk of the enforcement of the IANA considerations. When 
appealed (to IESG and then IAB) when is the IANA to apply the IANA 
considerations:
- of a BCP?
- of a standard track RFC?
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf